Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:You have just added to my previous point that YEC interpretations raise more questions one needs to hypothesise over. For if this literary phrase means literal evening and mornings (as many YECs interpret them), then how did the first three days have literal (and not pseudo) evenings and mornings if our sun wasn't created until day four?

I also recommend reading what was written earlier on in this thread regarding the "evening and morning" phrase (see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=72).

Kurieuo

There was the light already made, and it served for the reference point of day and night, morning and evenings. When the sun came along, it simply was fit it to what was going on here.

You have just added to my previous point that YEC interpretations raise more questions one needs to hypothesise over.

I'm not hypothesising over anything. I trust God and His word first and foremost and take it literally. To be honest I couldn't care less how old the earth is but I do take what it says at face value regardless of man made theories and ideas. As far as the scientific data goes...I refuse to let that be my final standard.

then how did the first three days have literal (and not pseudo) evenings and mornings if our sun wasn't created until day four?

Easy. God created time didn't he? The sun and the moon don't regulate it they are just a measure of it. I guess He worked in the dark for the first 3 days

I guess He worked in the dark for the first 3 days

FCC wrote:

K wrote:then how did the first three days have literal (and not pseudo) evenings and mornings if our sun wasn't created until day four?

Easy. God created time didn't he? The sun and the moon don't regulate it they are just a measure of it. I guess He worked in the dark for the first 3 days

That is all good to say, but then you're not really taking the text literally are you? For a literal morning and evening requires the sun. Yet, this you can't have if you believe the Sun wasn't created until day 4. Therefore you do not believe a literal evening and morning happened on the first three days. This is all I wish to highlight. And I'm quite fine for people to hold to the YEC interpretation, as long as they try to push that "their interpretation" of Scripture as God's word.

Kurieuo

For a literal morning and evening requires the sun. Yet, this you can't have if you believe the Sun wasn't created until day 4.

Heh, tell that to God whom created the "day" and the "morning and evening" before He created the luminaries on the fourth day.

That is what scripture say's, there really is no need to look further than that unless we try to explain what God did...we can't. And to do so is to put words in the Word that just aren't there.

For a literal morning and evening requires the sun

Were talking about literal 24 hour periods of time that we call "days". Before God made the sun and the moon and added the morning and evening labels it was still 24 hour periods of time. When the sun doesn't shine in Alaska for 6 months at a time do they still have days....ok, bad example

FFC, seems like you're beginning to understand what I'm getting at.

IRQ you really should read the Day-Age perspective for we believe the luminaries required for Earth's existence (such as the Sun) were created by the end of day 1 where it is written "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth." Yet, such luminaries were only clearly viewable in the heavens from Earth's surface at day four.

Again without a sun, the evening and mornings can only be psuedo evening and mornings without a real sunset and sunrise. I should point out that some YECs (such as Duncann and Hall) get around this by noting the same thing I noted earlier—the "evening and morning" phrase is simply a literary device marking the end of the day. This is the obvious conclusion since it is impossible for it to refer to a literal sunset and sunrise during the first three days if as YECs interpret the Sun was created on day 4.

Kurieuo

FFC, seems like you're beginning to understand what I'm getting at.

I feel like I've suddenly been caught up in a "who's on first" routine.

God bless you, Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:IRQ you really should read the Day-Age perspective

I have Kurieuo. I know where that theory is comming from, don't get me wrong. But by the same token I cannot ignore the fact that believing God took millions or even billions of years to complete the world messes with the rest of the doctrine of the Word (death and destruction). I would be tempted to believe thats (Day Age) how it was meant to be interpreted as well.

There are just as many, if not more (terrestrial) facts that point to a young earth as opposed to an old earth (ages). Considering this, I err on the side of caution and vote for a young earth as thats what I believe the literal interpretation of genesis says.

One such example of young earth proof is that of the recently discovered T-Rex bone with what appears to be still flexible cartilage and blood cells.

for we believe the luminaries required for Earth's existence (such as the Sun)

Is this really what you meant to say? The existence of the earth in no way is determined by the sun, moon or anything other than God.

were created by the end of day 1 where it is written "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth." Yet, such luminaries were only clearly viewable in the heavens from Earth's surface at day four.

The Word says otherwise. As a matter of fact Gen 1:1 says "heaven" not 'heavens'. I haven't pondered that too much myself, but it is interesting.

Again without a sun, the evening and mornings can only be psuedo evening and mornings without a real sunset and sunrise.

From the perspective from the earth I would agree, but were not discussing our perspective here are we?

FFC is perhaps right this is a who's on first routine, for I see this really goes in circles which says to me noone really cares what is being said. So unless there are any new persons who show an interest I just have a few departed comments in response.

Firstly, as demonstrated previously in this thread, God is freely associated with death and being the cause of death in Scripture.

Secondly, it is interesting you now tread outside of Scripture to science for support. I won't go there in this thread incase I am accused of placing science above Scripture, but I will say there are many who would see evidence for a young earth as being on par with evidence for a flat earth...

Shamayim has "im" which indicates plurality—"heavens". Furthermore, as I have said elsewhere: "the phrase Hashamayim we ha'erets, translated "heavens and earth", carries a distinct meaning which your YEC sources also understand. It consistently refers to the totality of the universe. This means in Genesis 1, all the materials of the universe (i.e., matter, energy and whatever else it contains) were created. Verse 1 quickly continues into verse 2 where we are given a reference point—Earth is formless and empty—so we can assume everything prior to Earth being formless and empty was in place being included the Hashamayim we ha'erets of verse 1. Thus, our galaxy, the Sun, and other required conditions for a primitive Earth to be existent, were in place at verses 1-2."

Finally, the reader is taken to the perspective of Earth's surface in verse 2 straight after it comes into existence: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that verse 3 which has "let there be light: and there was light", that such light (light from the Sun) became visible on Earth's surface despite its existence in the heavens before this time. After verse 2, we are never taken back to, for example, God's perspective.

Kurieuo

Ah, the theories that come from the fallible minds of men. Each generation, of course, thinks their theories can be proven until the next generation proves them wrong. And that's why the age of the earth is always chaninging.

Ah, the theories that come from the fallible minds of men. Each generation, of course, thinks their theories can be proven until the next generation proves them wrong. And that's why the age of the earth is always chaninging.

Isn't that the truth. At least this is the type of theory that doesn't put God and his Holy attributes in a bad light...excuse the pun. I guess there are some things that we won't know for sure until we stand in His Holy presence, and I have a feeling that at that point we will be so busy eating floor that it won't matter anyway.

Hahaha FFC, you be a funny person. I like that.

Anywho I have a video (right click save as) titled "Astronomy and the Bible" by Mike Riddle (95Mb) you may be interested in. Enjoy!

Hahaha FFC, you be a funny person. I like that.

Thank you! back at ya

I believe in a young Earth, and a literal interpretation of Scriptures.
I've read the whole thread (pretty much ), and think all points of view have been presented fairly well, but my belief in a young Earth wasn't changed by anything that I read.